The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A and C Imprisonment for two years, Defendant B’s imprisonment for one year and two months, and Defendant D.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the sentence imposed by the lower court to the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A’s method of committing a crime is an offense, planned, and highly damaged amount.

There is no contribution that the defendant contributed to the repayment of damage.

Since the method of crime is professional, even though the defendant plans to commit a crime or does not fully understand the process of crime, it is inevitable to take a heavy measure in light of the role and degree of participation of the defendant.

However, the court below's punishment is somewhat inappropriate in light of all the sentencing conditions in the records of this case, such as the defendant's age, family relationship, and circumstances before and after the crime, etc., in light of the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant recognizes and reflects the crime, the fact that there is no criminal record of the same kind, the fact that there is no gross profit from the crime, the fact that the amount of damage transferred is suspended from payment, etc.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is justified.

B. Defendant B and D did not make profits from criminal acts, but did not contribute to the payment of damages by the Defendants.

However, the defendants recognize and reflect the crimes.

In light of the aforementioned facts, the Defendants’ role and degree of participation are relatively relatively not limited, and the amount of damage can be considerably recovered due to suspension of payment, etc. of the account to which the amount of damage was transferred, etc., the lower court’s punishment is somewhat inappropriate, in full view of all the sentencing conditions in the records of the instant case, including the Defendants’ age, sex, family relation, criminal record, and circumstances before and after the commission of the crime.

Therefore, Defendant B and D’s assertion is justified.

(c)

Defendant

C The crime of this case is an interview, planned, and highly damaged amount.

Considering the method of crime, the nature of crime is also poor.

The defendant's degree of his participation is weak.

One of the arguments, intelligence and professional parts is in charge of M andO.